Where this workspace stands, and what to do next

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already mark the tool read-only and open-world, and the description adds useful behavioral context: what it reads, that it derives the next step from missing items, and that it separates app-side work from API-side work. It does not mention that passing projectId also makes that project active, but that detail lives in the input schema and does not contradict the description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the primary trigger and then explains behavior and output value. It is a bit long but each clause contributes, including the boundary statement about the PromptEye app.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only orientation tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description explains what the call inspects and what kind of answer it returns ('names the next step from what is actually missing'). It doesn't enumerate the exact return fields, but the outcome is clear enough for an agent to invoke and interpret it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is one optional parameter, projectId, and the schema description covers 100% of its meaning ('Report on this project instead of the active one, and make it active'). The tool description adds no param-specific detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific purpose: produce a workspace status and the next step, based on account, project, brand description, prompts, and pending suggestions. This clearly differentiates get_started from sibling list/read tools such as list_projects or list_prompts, which just return one object type.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit trigger phrases ('what they can do with PromptEye, where to begin, where they stand, what to do next') and recommends calling it at session start before guessing. It does not name sibling alternatives or explicitly say when not to use a different tool, though it contrasts itself with a generic list of server capabilities.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.